“If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”
– C.S. Lewis

Dear Mr. Lewis,

You could be an alien (what I would pay to see you discuss this with Dan Aykroyd), but most likely it means you need to learn to accept reality and not invent a fantasy land to avoid the fact that sometimes we don’t get what we want. If no experience in this world will satisfy you, then perhaps you:

1. Have not experienced enough of the world to understand how fulfilled you can be as a part of it.
2. Refuse to be content.
3. Misunderstand your desires.
4. Are deluded into thinking what we desire should be fulfilled.

In the meantime, I hope you enjoy drinking vodka with Dan Aykroyd.

Photo by Asterio Tecson

According to a long-term poll by the General Social Survey, those who support homosexuals and gay marriage are now in the majority of the American population for the first time!

The question they asked? “Are sexual relations between two adults of the same sex always, almost always, sometimes, or never wrong?” Only in the 2010 results did the numbers show a change from “always wrong” to “not wrong at all.”

May I just say it’s about damn time!

In a blog post detailing these findings, the comments got off to a glorious start. Here’s a response from “Barbara” who makes so many bigoted, homophobic statements I don’t even know where to start!

Chuck, you’re wrong if you think that everyone is going to come to accept your homosexuality and lifestyle as “normal”. It is not. If you really wanted to be accepted as normal, groups of you would do everything in your power to end the disgusting parades, but there is no call to end them, they are evidently loved by homosexuals. If you seriously want to act like the typical neighbor next door, aren’t you seriously embarrassed about them, or are you not allowed to speak the truth? If you think I would ever allow little children to watch them, you’re way off base. Sorry, but they show you as you are, and your “group” is not normal. The American Psychiatric Association calls depression and anxiety, which everyone has had at some time of their lives, labelled as mental illnesses. But your group has pressured them to accept as “normal” people who participate in parades naked or half-naked, men dressed as women, homosexuals acting out the sex act on a parade float in front of huge crowds, etc as “normal”, and do you really think that’s how the individual psychiatrists themselves think?

Everyone that I know does think that you should not be allowed to marry and definitely should not be allowed to adopt. Polls of Americans show that they do not agree with the states allowing homosexuals to marry, and if they’re asked if they should be allowed to adopt, they would hear a resounding NO. Just because your group is able to donate a lot of money and apply a lot of political pressure to get the laws passed that you want, does not mean that that the average American, and especially Christian Americans, agree with the law. Those laws would be undone in a minute if possible.

For those pollsters who are brave enough to go against the violent vehemence of your crowd, the polls show that your “marriages” are nothing but a sham. The vast majority of them are “open” marriages, with no intention of staying true to each other. It is not a lie that, on the average, homosexuals have extremely high numbers of partners compared to heterosexual men. I really doubt that you and your friends are willing to be truthful about this. Sorry, but this country’s interstate highways are notorious for having homosexuals in the restrooms just waiting for other random homosexual men, not caring in the least if they even see their faces, not caring in the least if they know them, they just want their sex. We all know about the homosexual baths, etc, and that’s why AIDS spread so quickly among homosexuals. The percentage of AIDS among heterosexual men in the US never approached the rate of AIDS among homosexuals. You may try and cover it up and sugar coat it, but it is a sick perversion that GOD says is an abomination. If you think we will all cave in to political correctness and ignore the truth, you’re wrong. It’s a shame that most people don’t bother researching anything, they just go along with whatever is the popular thought of the day. But I will always stand with God’s Word. In addition, being happily accepted as “normal” couples is not merely all that homosexuals want. They already have California law requiring that gay history will be covered in the student’s textbooks. They may not be able to give you the name of the first President, but they’ll have to learn the history of a group of people who want acceptance of their sin. I’m not sorry for how I feel. God’s way is always the right way. It’s sad but true, that I’m willing to go to my death for my faith in my Lord, but you’re willing to go to eternal condemnation for what pleases you sexually. Your eternal life is much more important, I’m praying you will repent.

It doesn’t make any difference in the world if my opinion is someday in the minority. I will always do my best to follow the Lord. Don’t you call it an agenda when you’re not happy enough with laws protecting your jobs, you then want laws allowing you to marry, you have laws to adopt, the next step now being taken is to teach little 3 and 4 year olds the history of the gay movement? And then what will follow, allowing kids of all ages to express their sexuality, so that the homosexuals can be with young boys? When will it end? Sorry, but I hardly see the political action groups dissolving. It’s not surprising that I’ve yet to see homosexuals saying how much they love the Lord and how the Lord has made a difference in their lives.

Click for a screenshot.

Sigh.

graphic by James Ellis

I follow the hashtag #atheism on twitter in order to keep abreast on what people are saying about religion and other controversial subjects. Often the content contains thoughtful discussion or bits of news that interests me, but much of it resembles typical “zinger” one-liner material: pithy 140-character messages that resemble confrontational bumper stickers instead of well-balanced arguments against religion. Yeah, I’ve done it too. I admit it! Twitter is the safe-haven of the verbal jab.

I spotted one such “zinger” today:

FlyingFree333

(Flying Free)

Without faith there could be no genocide, no racism, no bigotry; faith breeds evil. #christian #jesus #bible #god #atheism #islam #muslim

On 29-4-2011 13:30:22 from Twaitter

I’ve certainly heard this hyperbolic argument before, and as an atheist I do not agree. I realize you cannot easily present a reasoned argument for an enormous claim like this on twitter, but even if there were paragraphs of explanation behind it I’m not sure I would ever be convinced that the sole reason for racism, bigotry, and genocide is faith. To avoid an argument about vocabulary; “faith,” could easily be replaced by “religion.”

I am far from being an expert, but I think there are sociological, psychological, and economic causes unrelated to religion that cause these problems in the world. Religion is certainly used to justify many horrible actions such as genocide (e.g. Deuteronomy 20:16-18) and slavery (e.g. the Curse of Ham). However, I do not think all religions or faiths bring about these results, nor do I think ruling out other causes for the evil in the world is wise.

I’d really like to have a discussion about this claim. Is faith the cause of genocide, racism, and bigotry?

And as a side question: What do you think about these kinds of pithy statements on twitter? Do you think they help anything or perhaps give atheists a bad name?

“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”

“But,” say Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”

“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t though of that” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

– Douglas Adams from “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” – 1979

An article on ChristianityToday.com asks the question: Why are there still atheists? “Still” is in reference to Romans 1:19-20 and Psalm 19:1 (as well as Creationists—young- and old-earth alike) that declare God has made it plain that he exists through the things he has made. The author, Shawn Graves, argues that the lives Christians lead and their own words must also be the illustration of proof that God is real.

I am relieved that Graves (more so than Jim Spiegel in a previous piece for the same website) acknowledges respectfully that atheists have rational, evidence-based objections against the Hebrew god Yahweh.

Spiegel asserts that for many atheists, it’s not “cool, rational inquiry” that led to their atheism. Rather, in many cases it’s complex moral and psychological factors that produce atheism.

… Surely some people accept atheism due in part to such powerful motivational factors. For some atheists, it’s not merely a matter of evidence. Yet, as Spiegel grants, these motivational explanations don’t hold for all atheists. Consider some of the personal essays found in Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life, edited by Louise Antony. Some testify that their move from theism to atheism came at tremendous personal cost and required significant, and painful, existential reorientation. A few even express a deep longing for Christian spirituality. Apparently, these philosophers had plenty of strong psychological motivation to retain or embrace theism. Yet they didn’t. Their atheism really did seem to be a matter of evidence and argument.

Yes! Someone gets it. I, for example, was extremely happy and content with Christianity. It had never done me wrong, and I benefited from it. As I’ve said before, I left theism kicking and screaming. I was horrified by the idea that I had been mistaken all my life, and that there really wasn’t a great and magic solution to suffering or evil.

I’m intrigued by the humility in this conclusion:

We should acknowledge that we have our own powerful non-rational motivations for belief. We ought to confess that our religious proclamations haven’t been as clear and compelling as the heavens and the skies in proclaiming “the glory of God and the work of his hands,” that our lives haven’t “made it plain” that God exists. We need to grant that our God is a God who sometimes hides and is silent. Finally, we need to concede that all of this does make a genuine evidential difference for plenty of atheists. Maybe that helps to explain why there are atheists.

Do you think Graves ever answers the question about why there are still atheists? Do you think it’s up to theists to fix this, or are they still incorrectly assuming that what keeps us atheists from belief is a lacking in humanity (namely pride, sin, etc.) and not because there truly is a lack of evidence?

photo by TrevinC

“Life sucks and then you die.” Or so said my coworker when she heard about my break-up with my boyfriend yesterday. I laughed, and she promised she would pray for God to take away my troubles. Another acquaintance tried to comfort me by saying I shouldn’t be afraid about finding another man in the future. God would provide, and we have nothing to fear.

Well, sometimes life does suck, being lonely is no fun, and once in a while I wonder if I will find a mate for the long haul who will be an amazing match for me. But am I afraid? Does being an atheist have anything to do with my heartache? I don’t think so, no.

Fear and Humanity

Do atheists fear the world? Is fear a bad thing? Would believing in God protect us from trouble and remove fear from our lives?

(Read more after the cut…)

The Secret Atheist posted a response to an Oswald Chambers quote on fear:

“The remarkable thing about God is that when you fear God, you fear nothing else, whereas if you do not fear God, you fear everything else.” —Oswald Chambers

There was a time when I thought that all non-Christians lived their life in constant fear. Fear of the future, fear of death, fear that they would be wrong in the end and have to face judgment.

[This] is a lie spread by Christianity in order to protect itself from unbelief. If believers think that without god there is only fear, they will be less likely to question their beliefs.  … I don’t fear everything. I don’t fear god. I don’t fear death.

At first blush, I agree with his reaction to Chambers and those who quote him. I also spent my life thinking non-believers had no hope in life and no comfort in trials. When my father died, I thanked Jesus that I had him to help and console me and that I didn’t have to mourn hopelessly like non-Christians did.

I think I see what Ozzy (as one of my favorite authors as a believer, we’re on a nickname basis ) was saying in the sense that fearing God basically meant having a reverential respect and sense of incredible awe towards Yahweh’s powers. If you think your deity is perfect, good, loving, and can do anything for you that you ask for, then I can see how the world and our struggles might appear less daunting or intimidating. If I had Superman in my back pocket, I’d feel pretty safe.

Unfortunately, this view takes away the dignity and power and capability from the individual and places it all on an unknowable, untouchable, invisible being who doesn’t show up in tights and a cape when life goes awry. As believers, we do not teach ourselves to be able and influential if all we focus on is our inability and God’s super-ability.

I much prefer the humanistic point of view that we are empowered to do good, and to do it as best we can. Sure, there will be impossible obstacles to overcome along the way, and no, we won’t have an escape from struggle. But we will know that we chose to act, and we made the world a better place despite any fear or failure.

Life is hard, and some of it is frightening, but we need not bend to fear or tell ourselves that a supernatural superhero is going to come save us. We don’t need to be weaklings or self-deprecating. Even the most imperfect of us can do the most good. We need to work and toil together and hope for what’s real.

photo by TreMegLan

A Personal P.S.

I truly appreciate the kind tweets, emails, and texts many of you have sent in response to my broken relationship. I don’t often know how to reveal that side of my inner life to people—even my closest friends and family. Having virtual and long-distance hugs and kind words come from you really does make an impact on my feelings. Thank you so much. I’m very sad about things ending between him and I , but I am very thankful that we handled it like grown-ups and have split amicably. I’m sure this will be a good thing for both of us in the long run.

Ahura Mazda

An email from Rev. Richard Robbins:

Your name is wrong. You are not a godless girl. Your name should actually be denial girl. You can tell me till the cows come home there is no God but I know for a fact that you believe in God you are just living in denial. If you admit there is a God then you have to deal with being accountable to Him. Not such a happy thought.

I bought the wrong domain name, folks! Is denialgirl.com still available?

Mr. Robbins,

I didn’t think one of the “gifts of the spirit” was telepathy. Apparently I missed that in one of Paul’s epistles. It seems you claim to have the same mind-reading power as the deity you worship. Do you also claim to be all-knowing? Maybe it’s limited to the thoughts and views of atheists? Very curious indeed!

I’ve stated before that the ignorant claim that atheists can’t handle being accountable for our actions and “sins” is ridiculous. Apparently atheists’ refutations of this canned accusation haven’t made a dent in the condescending beliefs behind it, so let me hold up a mirror for you:

You can tell me till the cows come home that Ahura Mazda does not exist, but I know for a fact that you believe in Ahura Mazda and are just living in denial. If you admit Ahura Mazda exists, you have to deal with being accountable to him. Not such a happy thought.

See how amusing that sounds? How likely are you to convert to Zoroastrianism because of what I said? Your answer is going to be the same as mine if you had asked me how likely I am to take your statements seriously. Sorry, Mr. Robbins, it just doesn’t work that way.  I can’t be shamed or frightened into believing in a deity if there is no evidence that one exists. Doing so would be intellectually dishonest and delusional.

One more thing: According to Christianity, it doesn’t matter if someone admits there is a God or not; they will still be held accountable for their actions (as will all Christians, if you’ve forgotten what your guy said in Matthew 7:21-25). Of course, you wouldn’t have this problem if you believed in the true god, Ahura Mazda. Good luck!

What are logical fallacies?

Here are a few helpful resources for improving your (and my!) writing.

The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else’s position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It’s a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

“To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven’t, your position is indefensible.”

The above straw man argument appears at about once a week on the net. If you can’t see what’s wrong with it, read the “Introduction to Atheism” document.

—”Atheism: Logic & Fallacies,” Infidels.org

Also because, as stated above, there is a tendency to start with desired conclusions and then construct arguments to support them, many people will happily draw upon logical fallacies to make their arguments. In fact, if a conclusion is not true one must either employ a false premise or a logical fallacy in order to construct an argument that leads to that conclusion. Remember, a sound argument (one with true premises and valid logic) cannot lead to a false conclusion. So in order to avoid using logical fallacies to construct invalid arguments, we need to understand how to identify fallacious logic.

—”How to Argue,” Steven Novella, MD

It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your topic—if a conclusion seems obvious to you, you’re more likely to just assume that it is true and to be careless with your evidence.

—UNC “Fallacies” handout

Good ol’ Bible literalist John Shimkus (R-IL) is a member of the United States House of Representatives. He’s an evangelical Republican who also sits on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

This committee has jurisdiction over a large portion of legislation, such as public health, biomedical research, travel and tourism, national environmental policy, alternative energy, and conservation. That sure is a lot of power, wouldn’t you say?

So whats the problem with Shimkus being on the committee? Let’s see what he thinks about preserving the environment:

During a hearing in 2009, he dismissed the dangers of climate change and the warnings of the scientific community by quoting the Bible. He uses God’s promise to Noah (Genesis 8:21-22) [as proof.]

“I believe that’s the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it’s going to be for his creation,” Shimkus said.

Oh goody, someone who thinks the flood was literal and pretty rainbows mean climate change is a lie.

He then uses Matthew 24:31 (which has nothing at all to do with the environment) to defend a position that:

“The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood,” Shimkus asserted. “I do believe that God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.”

(source)

Shouldn’t there be a requirement for learned people who actually know an industry—or at least (dare I say it) science—to lead the major committees in the House? Pretty please with intelligence on top?

Oh gee, it reminds me of this:

photo by Clare & James

How diverse is your circle of friends? Are you surrounded by people of one belief system? Do you ever avoid getting to know people with vastly different opinions and convictions—even without consciously doing so? Why or why not?

I don’t understand why someone would choose to discount an entire group of people because of their belief or non-belief in deities. Unfortunately, I see this happening on both sides of the theism debate.

A Christian Perspective

As a Christian, I was encouraged to be close friends only with others who shared my values, views, and theology. Certain Bible verses were used to support the separation of one group from another:

Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.
–Proverbs 27:17

Message: Make sure it’s a Christian that sharpens you and helps form your character.

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
–2 Corinthians 6:14-15

Message: Christians and non-Christians are like oil and water—they don’t mix. You have nothing in common, so don’t even try.

For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them; for you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light …
–Ephesians 5:5-8

Message: Since those godless folks are going to hell, don’t be fooled into thinking something good will come from being buddies. Stick with your own kind.

This isolationist perspective keeps ideas, conversations, and learning from flowing freely between people. When we never hear anyone else’s ideas or see them in “normal life,” we rely on assumptions and stereotypes about someone else’s point of view. If I never had known any atheists, I would never have realized that they could be moral, loving, and unceasingly kind people—and all without faith or God!

An Atheist Perspective

When I talk about how most of my closest friends are devoted Christians, I hear words of pity and sympathy. One of my non-religious friends has admitted that he probably wouldn’t have become close with me if I’d been a Christian. I observe a lot of “us vs. them” talk on twitter and on atheist sites around the internet.

I have more secular friends now than I ever did before, and I do enjoy the knowledge that no one is going to critique my atheism when we get together. But it’s not like I fear confrontation every time I talk to a believer. People are often much nicer and more accepting than we expect. In my diverse friendships, debates are rare but good discussions are plentiful.

I may be “anti-theism,” but I am not “anti-theists.” I accept and love people who hold very different ideas than I do, and we get along just fine. Why? Because there’s more to life than philosophical debates and evangelism.  Friendship is about choosing to care for someone and investing time, attention, and effort to that person’s life. Being close with a friend doesn’t require us to be on the same page about politics or religion. That may add another level of intimacy, but it’s not as vital as one might think. I think feeling comradeship with those who share your views is important for atheists and Christians alike; we shouldn’t be afraid to branch out and have a great time with someone new.

What Do You Think?

Do you avoid becoming close with people who don’t agree with you on religion?  Are atheists and Christians truly oil and water? Do beliefs make such an impact on what friendship is all about?